Recycling and sound philosophy

Something just dawned on me as I was washing the plastic cutlery that I got with my Noodles & Co food.

Now, hold on Judge-mental philosophers. Yes I do live in a pretty liberal place, and, it does really bother me all of the trash that I generate. Which, actually, it’s not very much considering what I notice neighborhoods generate. I generate maybe one kitchen trash bag of trash in my place of living about every two weeks without trying.

I do try to set my boxes and blatant recyclable items aside and put them in the recycling can outside. And, I know, we generate so much stuff that be recycled that never gets recycled simply because we do not have the global power presently to recycle all the stuff that could be recycled.

As well, I understand that even in my very lazy, admittedly not very worried version of recycling and Eco conservation, I probably do more than 3/4 of the globe does. And I would figure that I probably do more in my lame ass version of recycling and conserving then probably 2/3 of the United States.

One may ponder the philosophical questions of “what’s the use“. And then further ponder the usual ethical philosophical answers as like things that have to do with chaos theory, butterfly effect, like, I just do my part, all those kinds of compensations…

Of course, underneath all this implicit guilt tripping there is the Nazi version that basically we hear all the time:

“Human beings are destroying the planet! …

Everyone must get it together now or we’re all gonna die!!”

Ok. When you think about it, this voice goes through every single person‘s head who’s reading this post, I guarantee it. And probably 99% of the people who don’t read it as well.

I’m not talking about what peoples opinions on it are. I’m not talking about the ethics of it either. In fact, I would say that the ethics-as-blame behind it really just serve to perpetuate the problem, due to all the underlying mental health, societal, familial issues that motivate the individual to its modern, capitalistic dimensions.

No, I don’t really care here about what is ethical so far as recycling. I’m not even really concerned that we’re going to destroy ourselves, because, honestly, the vastness of the universe, and the vastness of the involvement of human beings in the universe, precludes that we will destroy ourselves.

Yes and – There’s no argument to be made due to the fact that any argument we would make, either pro or con, ignores the fact of the actuality of the situation, argues itself over the actuality of what it is. Namely, here we are having a conversation about a situation that we had no control over, except to say, that the whole time we felt that we had some control over it until we found out about it. And then our ethical animal minds jump up and have all sorts of weird reactions to it, including categorizing them into what is rational, sensible, detestable, fatalistic, you name it…

Different

It dawned on me though: we’re going about it the wrong way. Rather, the people that promote, down our throats, that we are destroying the planet and so we need to figure out how to conserve the planet better, they are going about implementing a solution the wrong way.

Basically , they’re guilt tripping us. ‘Science’ is being used incorrectly. Science yields information, and not an ethical mandate.

I don’t know about any of you guys, but, when someone guilt trips me, I usually end up doing the exact opposite as they want. At least right in that moment. Maybe I might get around to it at some point, but it’s definitely not in the timeframe that they’re thinking about when they’re guilt tripping me about whatever it is.

I’m not saying I’m right or I’m wrong or justified or not in my behavior and attitude, I’m just pointing out a simple fact of what occurs. But also, that I can guarantee that I’m not alone in this attitude and reaction and ultimate behavior.

So…

I think the better approach is to understand that recycling and conservation isn’t about “we better do this or we’re going to die”. Nor is it even about the world that we’re giving to our children, because those are just guilt trips that don’t work.

The way we should think about it is that what we’re doing is we’re giving the present and future more time to figure out how to handle the inevitable problem.

What is the inevitable problem? You might ask.

The inevitable problem is that there is always a problem.

Just ask K:

What the people are not knowing about, in my context, is that there is always some huge giant problem that humanity needs to solve right now.

This is what we call modern subjectivity.

The state that is modern is the state of problem. It is the avoidance of the truth of what is actually occurring for the sake of the problem that manifests because of an avoidance of what is actually occurring.

Ok. I’ll let you ponder that a little bit.

But I’ll just repeat.

We should think about recycling as someone who’s throwing interference in a chase…

Start at 2:00

If we look at our behavior as that we are just attempting to give our scientists more time to figure out how to handle the problem that is upon us, the problem that is eminent, the problem that will not go away — that is a different way of approaching than from the guilt trip.

Then people might actually change their attitude because then they’re actually thinking about their kids, rather than being told how to run their lives or how to parent.

Just a thought for all you sound philosophers who like to think that you’re ethical.

👽

Political human life.

Hello. I feel like I made a really good point in my last post, so I wanted to make another post to emphasize it !

Human life is not something that exists outside of the political domain. Which is just to say, in so much as we have a government, and in so much as we have this good functioning United States government, there is no human life outside of its political arena. And this is to say: law.

Now, I am the last philosopher to say that everything is political. That all we’re dealing with is politics. No.

However, the reason why I don’t feel I need a gun is because I feel safe enough under our government such that if I have an argument with someone I don’t have to worry about them killing me over it. Or me them.

That’s it. That’s politics. At root, there is nothing more than that basic fact. I don’t wanna have to carry a gun and defend myself whenever I go outside my house, or even if I’m in my house because someone might want my house. Governance, and particularly the United States government, is good because I can’t kill someone just because I disagree with them.

Yes, yes, there is all the social stuff too..

But the abortion, women’s health, issue is being made around life and health, more so around the sanctity of human life.

And I am saying that I thank God that I don’t get to kill someone just because I disagree with them. The reason I don’t get to is because of our government; in this sense, life has nothing to do with some essential quality of being human, Which is to say, some quality of being human that exists outside of governance.

If you want to argue the case with me, then that’s philosophy. Without governments you’re gonna start having a philosophical argument with me and I’m gonna pull out my gun and shoot you because I don’t wanna hear your opinion or argue or discuss with you about what some sort of essential valuable human life might be. Because I already know what it is, and if you have a different opinion then I’m gonna kill you. Why not? There is no policing body to prevent me in any way. I would sustain my ideal by removing every other, including what it is to be human and what it’s life is.

Now, I’m just making a point. I am not going to further the philosophical route to say that I’m ethical because of government. I’m saying that government has to do with securing of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the general welfare, and all that Constitution stuff.

I’m saying, life, human life, is what we are when we’re doing stuff involved with other human beings. And if we would bring the issue of abortion back to this basic fact, and not bring in what people believe health is or life is, then the decision would be so clear.

Ethics, and my personal values about the sanctity of human life is my personal values. in other words, it is my religion. And government should not step into my personal religious views so long as they don’t interfere in another persons ability to pursue their own life.

If a fetus is interfering in my life and my ability to pursue my values and my beliefs, then ultimately it’s doing it through its mom at least, at minimum. And so whatever value that the fetus might have so far as a human life, is ultimately a religious ethical argument.

We need to write a better law. And not make it upon whether or not a fetus is a human life and deserves rights.

Individual communities can do that. We have to get clear on what is actually happening, if we are going to ever get anywhere towards some sort of “inalienable rights“ as an essence.

Truth is a Dirty Word

How do you bristle when you here about Truth?

Ponder …

It is not Becuase you are so intelligent or philosophically apt.

Rather,

It is because the notion of Truth informs the core of an offense which holds up your system of sense and ability.

A logic of ideas supported by a fundamental and basic offense is called, in one instance, ideology, and in another, religion.

Ponder, great souls and great minds, how intelligence, ethics, and indeed the whole world itself, is contained by a knowledge that is nothing less than a religious theology. Less a system in which individuals of various cultures persist, than a manner which is the universe itself arising to be known.

What Happens When People Die with Debt: Who Pays?

Millions of Americans are getting buried in debt, literally. A shocking number are dying with unpaid mortgages, car loans, student loans and credit cards.
— Read on www.debt.org/family/people-are-dying-in-debt/

— I just found this on a random search about what happens to dad when you die.

I was thinking about this because I have no one to give anything to, whether it be assets or deficits, when I die. So I was imagining that whatever debt I accrue will just get absorbed into the system. And I was pondering how many people die in this way, such that their debt just gets absorbed by no one in particular and everyone in general?

It is interesting to me that the link that I found says that it’s “scary” that so many people will die owing a lot of money.

And I thought what a strange and somehow dangerous propaganda that kind of view supports and propagates.

Why is it scary?

Thinking about it, I think it’s scary because if you really consider what it means to die with debt that everyone gets to absorb as a society, it means that Debt doesn’t really mean very much. For a person to die with debt that no one owes or no one will be obligated to pay, calls into question the very idea of an obligation to pay debt.

And this is scary. Because our system is based in a deep kind of faith that there is some universal obligation to pay debt. Indeed it’s written into our lives, but in America anymore you can’t go to jail for not paying your debts. The only thing that happens is your credit score goes down. Or you end up homeless. And then that’s not great for Society. either because then what’s happening is everyone’s paying a ridiculous amount of money for me to live. Whether it’s that I am absorbing money for social programs, or I’m causing some sort of social issue, such that “regular people” get to deny the actuality of their existence by denying the reality of my homeless, credit list, moneyless situation. etcetera.

What is this world religion that we are involved with? 

Tommy Curry sheds light into a significant blind spot

www.researchgate.net/publication/326919537_She_Touched_Me_Five_Snapshots_of_Adult_Sexual_Violations_of_Black_Boys

How often does our morality paint a broad swathe over people as general categories ? And how often does this stroke fix into institutional norms which then reify and enforce social bias?

Tommy Curry ventures into where the many fear to tread.

Work Ethic

I was listening to an NPR. Something about food stamps and how there is a debate about how giving them encourages people not to work. Then Just crossed my mind…

Who cares?

Why are we caring whether someone works or gets things for free?

I wonder if it really has anything to do with being a good person. I would think that my concern around whether or not a person works has more to do with the power they wield in potential then it does to do with contributing to society.

Think about it. If a person doesn’t have to work and get things for free, what am I worried about ?

If I remove my idealistic sense that everyone should work or else they’re a lazy bastard, then really all I’m left with is that this person will have a bunch of time to get mischievous and might actually do some things with power that would affect my life in a way that I would not want it affected.

Because, why should I care whether or not someone works?

That just keeps rolling around in my head.

What is the idea behind Congress’s debate over whether or not giving people money keeps them from going and looking for a job?

I mean, I seriously doubt that anyone is thinking that someone needs to work so they feel better about themselves.

Somehow I feel that is not the motivation for getting people to be motivated to work a job and make money, that is, so they don’t collect money for not doing work.

What do you think?

The logistics of ethics

This topic seems to cross my mind somewhat often. I feel that if anyone is ethical, and considerate of what that is and what it means, eventually they would have to consider that it really has nothing to do with what one is choosing or what a group of human beings might opt for evolutionarily speaking to perpetuate the species.

Of course, one does indeed consider ethics on this evolution airy type of cost benefit scale, but then I think someone would ultimately have to consider how it is very interesting that human beings would come up with a theory of ethics that is beneficial. That is, that it is quite a redundant proposal.

It would seem from this very simple consideration that there is nothing about ethics that is coming about because it’s beneficial to our species. Rather, it seems that ethics is some thing that we use to justify our existence and our activity more than really something that we use to make decisions upon. Of course, we make decisions, and of course we would call these decisions ethical and we can come up with all sorts of theories about it.

However, if we think of ethics as something that indeed arises in the universe as such, we might be obliged to think of it as a force that is occurring in which human beings are involved, but not necessarily creating, which is to say, as though ex Nilo. Or however you spell that.

We might consider that ethics arises as a logistical solution to existential problems. For example; it is not just that individuals identify with a cultural group and so see Other as a threat, as an evolutionary reductionary force Rather, that the Other never disappears, and so the very sense of ethical threat is an operation of ideological consolidation of Other, inclusion, a compensation for the contradiction that is arising in the ideal of a cultural/ religious ethics. That is, that no matter how we might wish or work to destroy the Other, it persists as a force that must be dealt with in a non contradictory manner.

Posting: On Idealistic Ethics, Nihilism, and the Analyticity of ‘Black Maleness’: A reply to Tommy Curry | Patrick F Bloniasz – Academia.edu

(43) (PDF) On Idealistic Ethics, Nihilism, and the Analyticity of ‘Black Maleness’: A reply to Tommy Curry | Patrick F Bloniasz – Academia.edu
— Read on www.academia.edu/45689398/On_Idealistic_Ethics_Nihilism_and_the_Analyticity_of_Black_Maleness_A_reply_to_Tommy_Curry

— Comment-rely to come.

cancel culture and ‘bad religion’ – BBC News

The musician believes political correctness online is having an “asphyxiating effect” on society.
— Read on www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53768254

——- and of course, my commentary:

That’s cool. On the other side of it though, I think the ideal where everyone just gets to say whatever they want and everyone is in awareness and excepting of their own emotional reactions, is a utopian pipe dream.

Lol

Wow I didn’t know he was 62 years old. That’s insane. Lol.

It’s interesting though, I think this idea that has accompanied the web and Internet which sees free speech and free expression as naturally extending to the infinity of Internet access, it’s self is a kind of religion.

I think the idea of free speech and acceptance of difference is much easier when you don’t have the full range of human experience in your face, or the potential there of.

It’s easy to live a tiny life that only encounters other people if you travel, or through the newspaper or through the TV news, and say that we should all have free speech and freedom of expression.

It’s a little bit more difficult when you have every type of speech and every type of expression available at a click.

I think both extremes are two types of religious expression.

What we have as the left and the right, and I think the myopia over each is really the manifestation of our present political climate.

And I love Nick Cave, but Nick Cave as an old man, I’m not really sure of.😁

He’s definitely the artist type, And now he’s an older artist who thinks society should be made up of a bunch of intellectual artists.

Well, actually maybe the left and the right are switching places. Said that the left has become so left that it’s starting to implement its liberal strategies as a kind of dogma.

And then it’s the right who’s actually taking on more liberal ideas, American ideals about free speech and letting everyone say what they want and not care what anyone else feels. Like, we are all adults and just grow some balls would you? And don’t be so sensitive!

But you know what, what I think kind of addresses both of these ends is something that neither of the extremes really understand.

*

It really extends from race relations, critical race theory. The idea is that the institutional/systemic norms (we could even bring in Foucault here) are made by white people. And so to be inconsiderate of other people under the assumption that “we’re all human beings, and just grow up already” is to deny the lived experience of people that fall outside of the norms, namely, people of color, but really anyone who doesn’t fit into the operative “top down” norms. 

This is the experience of America, though, and when you get out side of the generalized Americans and United States white culture into other countries, the hard line of critical race theory seems to meet some contradiction. However, the more we look at what is contradicting, the more we begin to hear voices that confirm what we are finding is the case in America, or the United States in particular actually, actually holds water across the globe.

So, the issue really isn’t between the “you need to be considerate of others”, side of things, and the “just get over it and stop being so sensitive” side of things.

But it’s more about having a realization about how the norms of society itself, and now I mean global culture in the widest sense, has been shaped by white identity.

And we call this identity “modern capitalism”. But even if we have a difficult time seeing history as the history of white capitalism, It doesn’t take very much to look around the globe and it’s history to see that it is always been lighter skinned people who developed the privilege, and it’s the darker skinned people who end up being oppressed, in poverty, excluded from what is “civilized” — yeah, like a dogma. Exactly like a religion. We can go even back to what we know as the first civilizations. It is pretty well known that even in the pre-history of India it was the Aryan races that came down and subjugated the darker skinned people of the subcontinent of India. The Aryan people are known to have lighter skin; And they were from the north.

(Please, some historian and/or anthropologist please correct me if I’m wrong!)

We need only Paulo Freire’s Formulation of oppression: both the oppressor and the oppressed play the game of oppression. And what typically happens is that the oppressed are so repressed that when I offered a chair at the oppressors table, playing by the oppressors rules, most gladly take it, and thus end up oppressing their own people, their own culture, their own kind, so to speak.

So the idea of this left and right Politicalization of this basic and fundamental issue is really a misunderstanding of the issue, actually identity politics.

Actually both sides are only being able to see what they are able to see, all the while proposing that they see the “whole big picture”. This is where the rift appears, in the blind spot that neither one can see nor really want to see because they both view their ideas as “liberal”, as in, having to do with liberty and freedom.

But what they are really developing is a kind of religious dogma which colors of the world for the benefit of that particular side.

And I don’t mean to use the word “color” just as a insignificant adjective. I literally mean it in the sense of critical race Theory that both sides who are involved with their sense of white righteousness actually color the world through their moral and ethical imperative of which they are incapable of seeing outside.





x

The New Philosophy

The Moment of Decisive Significance took more than 4 years to write and publish, and it still needs edits. The Philosophical Hack the first and second parts took a little less time, partly because of how Nathaniel approached it.  Actually, The Philosophical Hack is not yet complete, so all and all, for all 6 parts, will probably take even longer than 4 years — and being that Nathaniel undertakes other projects, the last 4 parts will probably come out perhaps in 2030. 🙂

This is true philosophy to me.  Yes, philosophy can be understood as a commodity, a product, a piece of consumer good, but that is not what I think good philosophy does and is in truth.  In reality maybe it appears as something different…

Philosophy takes time, it is out of time, and it is thus timeless. 

It arises in time and out of time, but through arising in this manner, it is essentially of two ontological natures.

One of the points the Kierkegaard makes in his book “Fear and Trembling” is that Abraham had a faith that is beyond him; Kierkegaard says that he could never make the move of Abraham and, basically, this is why a person is in despair, sinful, as he says, in despair to will to be oneself.  Kierkegaard thus uses the literary figure of the Biblical Abraham to show the irony involved of Being a Knight of Faith.

His point is that when one is willing to be oneself never does she have the faith of Abraham, and thus, for those who might be so inclined (but not everyone), the best someone who is willing can do is live as a knight of infinite resignation. His point is so long as one is willing, that is, is open to the possibility of being oneself, as opposed to actually being oneself, then that person lives in despair.

Indeed this is the modern dilemma of the individual.

Time Spiral

 

My point is that so long as one is in time, they have faith in themselves and are working towards an end which is always ethically compromised: They have faith (hope) that the world holds a place for them to Be, but they never are quite sure how they are supposed to be (how am I proposed in context is the quandary of modern mental health).  The irony, though, is that one must indeed live in time and be ethical (in the sense of Being involved with ethics), but that that this is not all that one is and does.  One does not live in a condition where she must always choose upon ethics.  This is the point that Kierkegaard makes of Abraham.

Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical? 

We find the answer through his books, and the answer is yes.  The reason for this is that Abraham’s activity was not for his time, and yet in that he was indeed there, a human being doing actions, his actions were not ethical. Indeed, the point that Kierkegaard makes is that the ethics of Abraham were vested in God, and that God thus makes the world ethical by virtue of the absurdity that is not acting in time: Abraham has faith by virtue of the absurd.

Ironically, Slavoj Zizek, a contemporary social critic and philosopher, makes the same point when he says that the subject always acts too late, that by the very ontological nature of the modern subject of ideology, action is always reactionary.  Similarly Alain Badiou says the best political move is to not act politically, to abstain from politics. The revolutionary move is thus to move out of time, and to bring Kierkegaard back in, to act by virtue of the absurd such that what is ethical arises out of the act, as opposed to the ontological act Being involved with an attempt to act ethically.

The condition which evidences this ontological contradiction is what Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as well, call angst, which was first translated into English, by Walter Lawrie, I think, as dread, but then later authors (Hong and Hong, May) call anxiety.  The philosopher who arises out of time to act finds herself in a state of anxiety because she still appears on the scene within the ethical universe, albeit, one that is being manifested by the absurd situation of her being out of time. This is particularly salient in our 21st century because we find that this is a condition of knowledge, and not a condition of every human being who thinks thoughts.

  • The question that I have been grappling with is how does one who is so out of time do the work of art (or of love, Heidegger, Kierkegaard) which is motivated through the state of anxiety? (Also see Harman’s Dante’s Broken Hammer.)
  • How does one arise in time out of time?

My next project will thus be to produce a work of philosophy which covers the whole breadth of philosophical knowledge while at once mentioning neither a known philosopher or author, nor conceptual philosophical tropes, that is, terms which have assumed (privileged) dense philosophical definition.

That is what I am going to attempt, anyways.  🙂

Good luck!

 

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Wise & Shine

Understanding ourselves and the world we live in.

Taxshila Teachers

Learning is knowledge transfer to brain known as learnography

Resiliency Mental Health

Dr. Amy Marschall, Licensed Psychologist

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

RTS -Mental health

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health

Spo-Reflections

To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind. Beauty. Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

Lifesfinewhine

The Life & Ramblings Of A Zillennial

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion

THE HIDDEN SOUL

Want some motivation,this is the place

Bio-Blogger

Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.

Wibble

Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.

ThoughtsnLifeBlog

Change your thoughts change your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

TheCommonAtheist

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap

beetleypete

The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk

radhikasreflection

Everyday musings ....Life as I see it.......my space, my reflections and thoughts !!

THE SPECTACLED BEAN

Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia